Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 522 posts

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#471

Post by antisthenes »

madaxe_again wrote: post #50
sevenless wrote: post #4

These maps are based on emission trends continuing, assuming no political action will be taken. But wouldn't a hotter world tend to exacerbate emission trends, with human needs for AC and desalination rising, plus forest fires? Moreover, there might be some tipping point for large scale methane release. The 'tail risk' to global warming has appreciable density a long way out.

Not only this, but as the article touches upon, it may end up being lethal to go outdoors. At over 35C/95F with humidity of 100%, humans and other animals cannot cool themselves, even naked, in a breeze, in the shade, and die of heat exhaustion. So yet more air conditioning will ensue, consuming more energy, warming oceans further, raising humidity, and thus exacerbating the problem. Positive feedback cycles sure are…

Another unmentioned consequence of rising CO2 levels is the lost productivity and quality of life that will accompany that.

Consider the levels of CO2 rising from ~280 in the pre-industrial era to maybe ~700 by 2100. A 420 CO2 PPM outdoors also increases by at least that amount the air indoors, which leads to much higher CO2 concentrations, which are uncomfortable for people to breath in.

I notice fatigue, grogginess and reduced cognition at levels above 1500 PPM, which are quite often reached in poorly ventilated offices and bedrooms. So levels that might be okay right now at ~1200 won't be okay by the end of the century.

This is assuming a constant CO2 rise for the next 85 years at 3 PPM/year, which is quite optimistic. Depending on how bad the positive feedback cycles are, the rise might be much higher and will result in very poor indoor air quality for most people.

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#472

Post by CWuestefeld »

spdustin wrote: post #460
CWuestefeld wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* the inexorable slide into worldwide famine, war and anarchy* The projections for increased CO2 emissions and thus warming are predicated on global increases in GDP, because greater consumption correlates to greater emissions. Thus, we should expect that famine will not be the result of climate change, at least within any foreseeable range of change. Falling into famine would dramatically decrease GDPs, and thus for…

You seem to be overlooking the part of those predictions that deal with the societal effects that the forced migration of entire cultures would likely entail when those groups try to ensure their own survival as they leave behind their homelands because their land is under water / no longer arable / too hot / too cold. War.

Not at all. If things ever got to the point of forced migrations, that migration would necessarily entail a plunge in their GDP, thus at least slowing the effect.

(The other replies to my GP point out a delay in the feedback loop. I'm still thinking on that part.)

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#473

Post by Oletros »

mikeash wrote: post #364
Oletros wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is to say, the natural net contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is negative What?

Looking at the last hundred years or so, natural CO2 production is less than natural CO2 absorption. The difference is substantially less than artificial CO2 production, so the net change is still positive.

Do you have a link with the figures?

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#474

Post by monk_e_boy »

mikeash wrote: post #443
monk_e_boy wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't CO2 much higher in the past, hence why plants were so massive and could support big dino's.

Yes, CO2 was into the single-digit parts per thousand for much of the dinosaur era. I have no idea how that affected plant growth, but even if that's the cause, it seems tenuous to look at Mesozoic plant growth and assume modern agricultural crops will imitate them. Certainly far more tenuous than the evidence that climate change is causing damage and will cause more.

So you think that rising temperatures may be good for agriculture?

From a website:

As climate change leads to more frequent and intense natural hazards, it is expected that climate displacement will only increase in Bangladesh. The best estimates suggest that up to 18 million people may be displaced by sea level rise alone. http://displacementsolutions.org/ds-initiatives/climate-chan...

Europe us really struggling to deal with the migrants and refugees from Syria. I do wonder how we'll cope with future migrations. It really brings into perspective the idea of a border. Of a country. Just a man drew a line on a map.

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#475

Post by mikeash »

Oletros wrote: post #473
mikeash wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the last hundred years or so, natural CO2 production is less than natural CO2 absorption. The difference is substantially less than artificial CO2 production, so the net change is still positive.

Do you have a link with the figures?

There's a summary here:

https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

This is the relevant bit for how much emitted CO2 has accumulated in the atmosphere:

"From 1870 to 2014, cumulative carbon emissions totaled about 545 GtC. Emissions were partitioned among the atmosphere (approx. 230 GtC or 42%), ocean (approx. 155 GtC or 28%) and the land (approx. 160 GtC or 29%)."

If you want to double-check against increasing CO2 concentration, the mass of the entire atmosphere is about 5.15e18 kilograms, so one part per million is about 5e12kg or 5 gigatonnes.

The preindustrial CO2 concentration was roughly 280ppm. We're now at about 400ppm, so that's 120ppm or about 640 gigatonnes more CO2 in the atmosphere today. Things are a bit confusing here because for some reason emissions are measured in gigatonnes of carbon alone, not CO2, so you need to multiply emissions by 3.67 (the mass ratio of CO2 to just C) to get CO2. Taking the cited 230 GtC added to the atmosphere and multiplying by 3.67 gets us 873.46 gigatonnes, which is roughly in the same ballpark, considering this is an off the cuff internet comment using random googled sources.

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#476

Post by throwanem »

spdustin wrote: post #462
throwanem wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your despair, but there's hope to be found in the fact that this, too, shall pass. We've weathered worse crises as a species and come out of them smarter and stronger - and we'll do the same with this one, though it take a thousand years.

I do appreciate the sentiment. Truly, I do. It occurs to me that my pressing "submit" on that first comment was actually an important milestone for me, mentally. Through the years of my watching my species demonstrate the law of triviality, I can see now that I've gone through the five stages of grief, as defined by the Kübler-Ross model. Denial: Mainly, as a child. I can't think of a moment of my life after the exec…

> When you spend, over just 150 years, a natural currency that took millions of years to save, you drive the environmental economy into ruin.

It's not really so much the environmental economy - just ours; we're running out of runway, but the good news is, we don't go out of business if we go off the end. We just have to find a way to bootstrap with a lower burn rate.

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#477

Post by alanwatts »

RodericDay wrote: post #416
alanwatts wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested to see a comparison on the amount of advertising done per capita in Holland vs. the United States. Once I stopped watching television, I was no longer exposed to such incessant advertising. As a result, I stopped caring so much about impractical consumption. I.e. buying the new car they show every 10 minutes in such persuasive and skillfully crafted multi-million dollar targeted advertisements.

Me too. I rail against advertising incessantly on here, but I really think it's far nearer to the core of the issue than a lot of people think. Even a lot of anti-ad folk are like "just make them less intrusive and it'll be fine". No, that's just an extra annoyance. Ads are, at their very essence, incredibly bad.

Just did some number crunching and it appears Holland spends roughly half as much on advertising per capita than the US.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/272314/advertising-spendi...

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#478

Post by mikeash »

monk_e_boy wrote: post #474
mikeash wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, CO2 was into the single-digit parts per thousand for much of the dinosaur era. I have no idea how that affected plant growth, but even if that's the cause, it seems tenuous to look at Mesozoic plant growth and assume modern agricultural crops will imitate them. Certainly far more tenuous than the evidence that climate change is causing damage and will cause more.

So you think that rising temperatures may be good for agriculture? From a website: As climate change leads to more frequent and intense natural hazards, it is expected that climate displacement will only increase in Bangladesh. The best estimates suggest that up to 18 million people may be displaced by sea level rise alone. http://displacementsolutions.org/ds-initiatives/climate-chan... Europe us really struggling to…

What gives you the impression I think that?

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#479

Post by Oletros »

mikeash wrote: post #475
Oletros wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a link with the figures?

There's a summary here: https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions This is the relevant bit for how much emitted CO2 has accumulated in the atmosphere: "From 1870 to 2014, cumulative carbon emissions totaled about 545 GtC. Emissions were partitioned among the atmosphere (approx. 230 GtC or 42%), ocean (approx. 155 GtC or 28%) and the land (approx. 160 GtC or 29%)." If you want to double-check against increasing CO2 c…

Thanks

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#480

Post by mikeash »

James001 wrote: post #468
HillRat wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under conditions of increased CO2 availability, plants tend to decrease waster usage and sequester more carbon. Growth rates are faster, but require increased mineral availability. Unfortunately, nitrogen levels in plants decrease in high-atmospheric CO2 conditions, which leads to lower protein concentrations. As a result, consumption crops provide less energy and nutrition when consumed. So, all in all, the downside…

Really? You're going to extrapolate from lower nitrogen levels in plants in higher CO2 conditions (without a citation, might i add) to higher CO2 levels causing overall lower nutrition? and more aggressive soil depletion? Keep in mind that obviously more plant growth means more plant decay which cycles back int othe ecosystem. Are you trying to suggest that we should be decreasing agricultural yields so as to prevent…

"without a citation, might i add"

Odd card to play when your comment had no citations either, and you seem to be ignoring my request for them....

Post reply on HN